Definition of a #1 receiver

[oldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

You know what a #1 receiver is without having it defined for you. This is like asking what a franchise QB is and saying we could get by with a guy like Tyrod because Nick Foles won a SB at one point.

Nope.  If I knew I wouldn’t ask the question.

[ganesh]

1 hour ago, sven233 said:

A #1 WR is a lot of things, but first and foremost he is a guy that strikes fear into the opposing team.  He's someone that coaches go to bed thinking about how to contain him, because he will never truly be stopped.  He's an alpha on the field and competes down in and down out.  Ideally, although a lead dog, he loves it when his route opens up another guy for a big play.  He is someone that impacts the game in a big way even on snaps he doesn't get the ball.  He's a guy that forces teams to put multiple sets of eyes on him every play and shifts coverage when he goes in motion.  He's a guy that wants the ball in big moments and the brighter the lights, the better he plays.  He makes big time plays at key moments.  To me, that is a #1 WR.  They may not always be WRs, though.....they could be TEs like Kelce that demand targets and can't be stopped in the passing game.  He may not be a WR, but he is a #1 playmaker/target.

could he be a RB who can catch the ball ?

[Gunsgoodtime]

1 hour ago, hondo in seattle said:

I sometimes think the #1WR is overblown.

 

What if a team rotates 5 wideouts, none of whom surpass 1,000 yards.  But when you add in the TEs and backs, the offense still gains 5,000 yards through the air.  Do the fans then think: "Well, we would have had 6,000 yards if we had a true #1!"  

So trending now on TBD is having a #1 Wr is overblown 🤣🤣🤣

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

I keep reading how we have to go find a true #1 WR.  That begs the question:  what is a #1 WR?  A guy that makes X catches a year?  Demands double teams?  What?

 

I ask because the team we keep trying to beat, the team who has won several Lombardis in recent years, doesn’t seem to have a #1 WR.  So how do they win?  They have a #1 TE.  Does that count?  Is so than can Kincaid count as ours?

 

Good post.

 

People 100% use the phrase "#1 receiver" in different ways, meaning different things, and it leads to people talking at cross purposes.

 

The conventional meaning of "#1 receiver" is the guy who commands the lion's share of the targets.  He does this by being fast enough to threaten downfield; having the release moves/size/strength to get off the line against press man and not get shoved off his routes by physical DB play; being athletic enough to come down with contested catches; being able to run all the routes.

 

Lately, where modern offenses spread the ball all over the field, exercise RPOs, and make use of choice routes, "#1 receiver" sometimes gets used synonymously with "X" or "Boundary" receiver, the guy who stretches the field vertically and loosens things up for the intermediate routes across the middle.

 

Sometimes people use "#1 receiver" to mean guy who gets the most targets, whether or not he threatens downfield.  By that definition, Kelce has been KC's #1 receiver since they traded Tyreek Hill in the 2022 off season - but even before that, Tyreek kind of made his living 5-10 yds from the LOS and turned them into 17 yd gains with YAC, so he got the #1 share of the targets but wasn't that prototypical boundary/field stretcher guy.

 

Think I covered it and if people disagree I feel total certainty they will Let Me Know

 

[oldmanfan]

What I’m getting from my question is you don’t really need a #1 wide receiver, just a guy that teams have to account for more and that can be relied on to make catches.  I think that guy for us is Kincaid.

[Beck Water]

13 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

You know what a #1 receiver is without having it defined for you. This is like asking what a franchise QB is and saying we could get by with a guy like Tyrod because Nick Foles won a SB at one point.

 

I disagree with the first, but the analogy is perfect.  Back on the BA days of this board (Before Allen), we would see it all the time that people who had different ideas of what a franchise QB was, would argue vehemently about which QB were or weren't and who could be for us, without troubling to have it defined for them.  A lot of those arguments could have been cut short by just....SAYING WHAT WAS MEANT

 

Moral of the story: Don't assume someone knows what a Franchise QB or a #1 Receiver is without having it defined for them, explain what you mean by it.

[Einstein's Dog]

A different way to look at WR1 is to say it's your best WR on the team.  And currently the Bills WR1 is pathetic compared to the rest of the league.  

 

An offense that has Josh should have a good WR core.  Josh has the best 25-30 yard laser passing in the game today (maybe ever?).  

 

Get Josh a better WR that we can call a WR1.  Beane lost Diggs who was our best WR and we should get a new best.  Then it is easy to think K Coleman is better than G Davis, Samuel is better than Sherfiled/Harty while Shakir and Kincaid are both better with a year of experience.  Our WR room can be better than last year with the acquisition of a WR on the level of Diggs last year.

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Good post.

 

People 100% use the phrase "#1 receiver" in different ways, meaning different things, and it leads to people talking at cross purposes.

 

The conventional meaning of "#1 receiver" is the guy who commands the lion's share of the targets.  He does this by being fast enough to threaten downfield; having the release moves/size/strength to get off the line against press man and not get shoved off his routes by physical DB play; being athletic enough to come down with contested catches; being able to run all the routes.

 

Lately, where modern offenses spread the ball all over the field, exercise RPOs, and make use of choice routes, "#1 receiver" sometimes gets used synonymously with "X" or "Boundary" receiver, the guy who stretches the field vertically and loosens things up for the intermediate routes across the middle.

 

Sometimes people use "#1 receiver" to mean guy who gets the most targets, whether or not he threatens downfield.  By that definition, Kelce has been KC's #1 receiver since they traded Tyreek Hill in the 2022 off season - but even before that, Tyreek kind of made his living 5-10 yds from the LOS and turned them into 17 yd gains with YAC, so he got the #1 share of the targets but wasn't that prototypical boundary/field stretcher guy.

 

Think I covered it and if people disagree I feel total certainty they will Let Me Know

 

Good answer.  So the emphasis on a #1 WIDE receiver may be misplaced.

[Herc11]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

What I’m getting from my question is you don’t really need a #1 wide receiver, just a guy that teams have to account for more and that can be relied on to make catches.  I think that guy for us is Kincaid.

I think Kincaid has the potential, just isn't quite there yet. We'll see if his growth continues into year 2.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

I felt like Josh forced the ball to Diggs to keep him happy.
 

I am predicting Josh looks a lot better and the offense will be much more balanced and will Flow better without Diggs. 
 

sure, we may lose something here and there with not having a playmaker like Diggs out there to make that huge catch in crunch time (not meaning to be be sarcastic!), or draw more coverage away. But overall, I am excited to see more balance. 

[Beck Water]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

What I’m getting from my question is you don’t really need a #1 wide receiver, just a guy that teams have to account for more and that can be relied on to make catches.  I think that guy for us is Kincaid.

 

Well, kind of.  

 

You need receivers who can force the defense to defend the entire field horizontally and vertically.  Practically speaking, that means you need a QB who can scare the defense knowing that he can put the ball anywhere on the field, and he needs a receiver who can get downfield before the pass protection breaks down so that if the defense fails to account for him or lets him blow by them, they'll pay.

 

But in a modern NFL defense, that receiver doesn't necessarily have to be the guy who gets the most targets.

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Good answer.  So the emphasis on a #1 WIDE receiver may be misplaced.

 

In my opinion, Yes, but you need that guy who releases well enough and is fast enough to get downfield and make the opposing DC say "shiver me timbers!"

 

 

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, Maynard said:

They do. His name is Travis Swift. 

 

Travis Kelce-Swift  

 

 

[NewEra]

10 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

A different way to look at WR1 is to say it's your best WR on the team.  And currently the Bills WR1 is pathetic compared to the rest of the league.  

 

An offense that has Josh should have a good WR core.  Josh has the best 25-30 yard laser passing in the game today (maybe ever?).  

 

Get Josh a better WR that we can call a WR1.  Beane lost Diggs who was our best WR and we should get a new best.  Then it is easy to think K Coleman is better than G Davis, Samuel is better than Sherfiled/Harty while Shakir and Kincaid are both better with a year of experience.  Our WR room can be better than last year with the acquisition of a WR on the level of Diggs last year.

Good luck with that.  Anything can happen….but that’s not happening imo. Seems to me they’re going to roll with what they got plus maybe a 2nd 3rd tier FA if one happens to come available and take less money than they thought.

 

Bottom line-  it doesn’t matter if our WR group is better than last years as long as our TE group is better, our RB group is better and our OL is at least as good.  Not to mention our coaches.  
 

I think there’s too much infatuation with WRs in this fan base.  They matter, don’t get me wrong….but let’s not act like having an elite War unit is needed to win a SB.

[PBF81]

It's about the QB and building around him according to his skillset.  

 

Brady rarely had what would be considered a "#1 WR" in his Championship seasons.  

 

His top WRs in his SB winning seasons were Brown, Branch, Givens, and Edelman (Gronk) for three of them.  

 

His best WR was Moss and and then Welker.  They won nothing with them.  

 

We have no plan with Allen.  Just cut him loose and watch him go no matter how inefficient or lacking in optimization the offense is.  Why, because we have no creative mind on that side of the ball.  

 

Having great WRs obviously helps, particularly when you're playing without a plan and playground-ball like we do.  Otherwise, it can be overcome, but as with Belichick defensively, you have to have someone that can conjure up the total being greater than the sum of the parts.  So far out total's been less than the sum of the parts.  

 

[Dr. Who]

3 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Good luck with that.  Anything can happen….but that’s not happening imo. Seems to me they’re going to roll with what they got plus maybe a 2nd 3rd tier FA if one happens to come available and take less money than they thought.

 

Bottom line-  it doesn’t matter if our WR group is better than last years as long as our TE group is better, our RB group is better and our OL is at least as good.  Not to mention our coaches.  
 

I think there’s too much infatuation with WRs in this fan base.  They matter, don’t get me wrong….but let’s not act like having an elite War unit is needed to win a SB.

Sure, it's not needed, but your chances of success increase if you have it. (And I don't think our current WR room is even average, but maybe I'm wrong.) I'm disappointed in Beane's approach, and I'm not sold on Coleman, but I'm not writing off the season. Be interesting to see what kind of offense Brady comes up with after a full off-season to implement it. The draft indicates what you surmise. I'm on board with integrating the run game, and obviously, Kincaid is our best weapon, so TE usage ought to be a huge part.

[NewEra]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Sure, it's not needed, but your chances of success increase if you have it. (And I don't think our current WR room is even average, but maybe I'm wrong.) I'm disappointed in Beane's approach, and I'm not sold on Coleman, but I'm not writing off the season. Be interesting to see what kind of offense Brady comes up with after a full off-season to implement it. The draft indicates what you surmise. I'm on board with integrating the run game, and obviously, Kincaid is our best weapon, so TE usage ought to be a huge part.

I mean, your chance of success increases for every elite player you have.  More so on the defensive line than split out wide. 
 

I don’t think our WR unit is average either.  I think it’ll be better than KCs last year.  I think our RB room will be better than theirs.  I think our TE room can be similar as well as our OL.  
 

we just need the coaching and to execute the plays that are called. Having a star WR1 didn’t do much for us in the playoffs 4 years in a row.  
 

I think we can win with what we have as long as the defense doesn’t take a major step back and stays healthy 

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, NewEra said:

I mean, your chance of success increases for every elite player you have.  More so on the defensive line than split out wide. 
 

I don’t think our WR unit is average either.  I think it’ll be better than KCs last year.  I think our RB room will be better than theirs.  I think our TE room can be similar as well as our OL.  
 

we just need the coaching and to execute the plays that are called. Having a star WR1 didn’t do much for us in the playoffs 4 years in a row.  
 

I think we can win with what we have as long as the defense doesn’t take a major step back and stays healthy 

We only nominally had a WR1 last year, imo, but I take your point. Getting younger on D will hopefully mitigate the injuries somewhat.

[Einstein's Dog]

4 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Good luck with that.  Anything can happen….but that’s not happening imo. Seems to me they’re going to roll with what they got plus maybe a 2nd 3rd tier FA if one happens to come available and take less money than they thought.

 

Bottom line-  it doesn’t matter if our WR group is better than last years as long as our TE group is better, our RB group is better and our OL is at least as good.  Not to mention our coaches.  
 

I think there’s too much infatuation with WRs in this fan base.  They matter, don’t get me wrong….but let’s not act like having an elite War unit is needed to win a SB.

The question should not be what unit you have to have - because none are needed to win an SB (not even QB).  The question should be what would help your particular team the most.  The Bills have Josh a generational QB with one of the best 25-30 yard laser arms ever - a good WR room should be a priority.

 

I'm still hoping a move is made.  They only took one WR so it could be saving the spot.  They have extra picks next year as draft capital, Tre money and possible Josh restructure.  

 

The Beane denials could be just keeping expectations low.  Plus any move might not be done quickly.

[Dr. Who]

11 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

The question should not be what unit you have to have - because none are needed to win an SB (not even QB).  The question should be what would help your particular team the most.  The Bills have Josh a generational QB with one of the best 25-30 yard laser arms ever - a good WR room should be a priority.

 

I'm still hoping a move is made.  They only took one WR so it could be saving the spot.  They have extra picks next year as draft capital, Tre money and possible Josh restructure.  

 

The Beane denials could be just keeping expectations low.  Plus any move might not be done quickly.

As you know, I'm really hoping this narrative has merit, but overall, I think it is more likely Beane is cognitively impaired when it comes to assessing what is and is not an acceptable WR room. It's just exasperating that they always seem to ask Josh Allen to do more with less. There probably is enough above the minimum threshold for him to work with, but why place that burden on him?

[NewEra]

10 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

The question should not be what unit you have to have - because none are needed to win an SB (not even QB).  The question should be what would help your particular team the most.  The Bills have Josh a generational QB with one of the best 25-30 yard laser arms ever - a good WR room should be a priority.

 

I'm still hoping a move is made.  They only took one WR so it could be saving the spot.  They have extra picks next year as draft capital, Tre money and possible Josh restructure.  

 

The Beane denials could be just keeping expectations low.  Plus any move might not be done quickly.

Or would a great run game with dual TEs help out QB more?  🤷🏻‍♂️ after watching KC win 2 SBs back to back with below average WRs, I don’t know what’s best for an elite QB.  
 

There are a handful of teams good enough to win the SB every year.  It all comes down to being relatively healthy and executing a good game plan.  It’s not a science.  

16 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

We only nominally had a WR1 last year, imo, but I take your point. Getting younger on D will hopefully mitigate the injuries somewhat.

We had Diggs for 3 elite seasons prior to this year.  All same results in the playoff losses.  He was beyond irrelevant